Re[2]: Old Earth
David S. Buchanan (buck353@okway.okstate.edu)
Fri, 15 Mar 1996 10:11:03 -0600 Steve Schimmrich said:
>The evidence for an old earth is writ large in nature and if you
>spend some time studying geology you will see that the evidence is
>overwhelming and the idea of a 6000 year old earth appears quite
>ludicrous.
and Arthur Chadwick responded:
> Not nearly so ludicrous as the idea of a resurrection or an ascension or
>a hundred other things in scriptures.
I have deleted the original message but I recall that Arthur went on to say
something to the effect that there is much evidence against the
resurrection just as there is much evidence against a young earth (if my
recollection is incorrect, my apologies).
This response confuses me on two fronts.
First, I am not aware of any physical evidence against the resurrection.
All we have is the word of those that were there at the time. Of course we,
who are Christians, also have the knowledge that Christ lives in us and so
He must be alive. In contrast, there is certainly much physical evidence
that opposes a young earth. We can choose to accept it as convincing, or
not, but the evidence does exist.
Secondly, a comparison of a belief in a young earth with a belief in the
resurrection seems to miss the fact that the resurrection is central to the
nature of Christianity while the age of the earth is not. Without the
resurrection, there is no uniqueness to Christianity. It is like other
religions that revere a great teacher or philosopher. Further, without the
resurrection then the central Christian concept of accepting Christ into
our hearts and lives is faulty. In contrast, evidence for an ancient earth
does not contradict our belief in a risen Saviour.
Dave
______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re: Old Earth
Author: Steven Schimmrich <s-schim@students.uiuc.edu> at SMTP
Date: 3/14/96 12:01 AM
Arthur V. Chadwick (chadwicka@swac.edu) wrote in reply to my comments...
>>
>
I disagree. There is a ton of negative evidence against a young earth.
The resurrection was a unique miraculous event. Ah, but you might say the
creation was as well. The problem is that if it were, then God seems to
have planted a lot of evidence to cover His tracks and make it look old.
Why, if it were created recently, would God go through all the trouble to
make it look so old by fiddling with dozens of isotopic ratios (not just
here on earth, but also in meteorites and on the moon), stack strata
upon strata, place millions upon millions of fossil organisms in such strata
(start putting therapsids here, stop putting trilobites there, etc.), leave
evidence for Precambrian, Permian, Pleistocene ice ages, etc. etc. etc...?
In theory, as a Christian I have no problem with God intervening in
miraculous ways. I am however, uncomfortable with God doing so and then
making it look very convincingly as if He didn't. No offense, but it's
been my experience that most people I meet who believe in a young earth
have never studied geology or gone out to look at rocks. What I, as a
Christian geologist, would love to do is find a geologist who believes in
a young earth. The only one I know of is Steve Austin at the ICR and I've
never had the pleasure of speaking with him (I'd love to take him up on
some of his comments in "Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophy")!
- Steve.
-- Steven H. Schimmrich Callsign KB9LCG s-schim@uiuc.edu Department of Geology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign 245 Natural History Building, Urbana, IL 61801 (217) 244-1246 http://www.uiuc.edu/ph/www/s-schim Deus noster refugium